|
Return
to EX7
ITEM EX7
- ANNEX 11
EXECUTIVE
– 5 FEBRUARY 2003
SECONDARY
EDUCATION IN WANTAGE AND GROVE AREA
RISK ASSESSMENT
OF OPTIONS
Risk
is anything that affects the cost, timely delivery and quality (user satisfaction,
desired outcome, etc) of a project. The source of Risk can be internal
and external to the project.
Internal
Risks: inadequate or changing brief, policy change of LEA, design,
procurement and construction, staff and time shortages, etc
External
Risks: District Council plans/policies, Government finance and policy,
demographics, market conditions, consumer preference, behaviour of builders.
COST
RISK
-
Finance Government grant/permission to borrow
PFI
credits
Capital
receipts from land sales
Developer
contributions
District
funding
- Cashflow
and Debt Charge, particularly payment of receipts and developer
contributions.
- Project Cost
- unforeseen inflation
- brief, changing
brief and additional costs/requests
- design
- unforeseen costs
from building, ground, services etc
- tender cost
and procurement
- construction
- cost of property
in use e.g. repair and maintenance, heating, lighting, operational,
etc
- Whole Life
Costing
- discounted Net
Present Value of capital and running cost.
TIMING
RISK
Delays
caused by
- Briefing – late,
insufficient or changing
- Design and procurement
(workload etc)
- Construction
(state of market, competition, project management, etc) including
unforeseen problems of site, buildings and weather.
- Changes of Government
and District policies
- Building and
take up of new houses for S106 contributions
- Sale and acquisition
of land
QUALITY
RISK
{
Suitability { User satisfaction
{
Adequacy { Education performance
{
Condition { Value added
- Flexibility
for future change
- Briefing
and policy change
- Design
and construction
- Funding
and cost reduction
- Demographics
and school roll
Note
: - Scores assume PFI funding route. Thus certain scores reflect
developer liability. The risk assessment relate to LEA risks,
and assumes PFI funding.
OPTION
1
Retain three existing
sites in Wantage : 2@ 11-16 years and 1 @ 16+ years (East site)
|
|
Risk
Factor
|
Importance
0
- 10
|
Probability
of risk
0
– 10
|
Score
|
|
Cost
|
Funding Shortfall
|
9
|
9
|
81
|
|
|
Cashflow
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
|
|
Project Cost
Overrun
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Whole Life
Cost (capital revenue)
|
8
|
8
|
64
|
|
Timing Delay
|
Brief and Policy
Change
|
5
|
7
|
35
|
|
|
Funding Delay
|
7
|
8
|
56
|
|
|
Delivery delay
|
6
|
8
|
48
|
|
Quality of
Schools
/Desired
Outcome
|
Suitability
of space, buildings and sites
|
8
|
8
|
64
|
|
Sufficiency
|
8
|
7
|
56
|
|
Efficiency
of operation
|
9
|
9
|
81
|
|
Flexibility
to meet future change
|
9
|
8
|
72
|
|
Condition (as
it affects use and desired outcome)
|
8
|
8
|
64
|
|
Total
|
|
|
627
|
Footnote Probability
10 = most important,
absolutely critical factor 10 = cannot occur
0 = unimportant
and not worth considering 0 = absolutely guaranteed occurrence
with no risk
Score Total
Importance x probability show
comparative ranking of risk
Higher scores
– greatest project risk between options
OPTION
2
Single
new super secondary school in Grove to replace three existing sites in
Wantage which would be sold.
|
|
Risk
Factor
|
Importance
0
- 10
|
Probability
0
- 10
|
Score
|
|
Cost
|
Funding Shortfall
|
9
|
6
|
54
|
|
|
Cashflow
|
2
|
2
|
4
|
|
|
Project Cost
Overrun
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Whole Life
Cost (capital revenue)
|
8
|
2
|
16
|
|
Timing Delay
|
Brief and Policy
Change
|
5
|
8
|
40
|
|
|
Funding Delay
|
7
|
6
|
42
|
|
|
Delivery delay
|
6
|
2
|
|
|
Quality of
Schools
/Desired
Outcome
|
Suitability
of space, buildings and sites
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
|
Sufficiency
|
8
|
0
|
0
|
|
Efficiency
of operation
|
9
|
1
|
9
|
|
Flexibility
to meet future change
|
9
|
1
|
9
|
|
Condition (as
it affects use and desired outcome)
|
8
|
1
|
8
|
|
Total
|
|
|
194
|
Footnote Probability
10 = most important,
absolutely critical factor 10 = cannot occur
0 = unimportant
and not worth considering 0 = absolutely guaranteed occurrence
with no risk
Score Total
Importance x probability show
comparative ranking of risk
Higher scores
– greatest project risk between options
OPTION
3
New secondary in
Grove and retention of central Wantage site as a secondary for the town.
East and West site would be sold.
|
|
Risk
Factor
|
Importance
0
- 10
|
Probability
0
- 10
|
Score
|
|
Cost
|
Funding Shortfall
|
9
|
7
|
63
|
|
|
Cashflow
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
|
|
Project Cost
Overrun
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Whole Life
Cost (capital revenue)
|
8
|
5
|
40
|
|
Timing Delay
|
Brief and Policy
Change
|
5
|
5
|
25
|
|
|
Funding Delay
|
7
|
7
|
49
|
|
|
Delivery delay
|
6
|
6
|
36
|
|
Quality of
Schools
/Desired
Outcome
|
Suitability
of space, buildings and sites
|
8
|
4
|
32
|
|
Sufficiency
|
8
|
4
|
32
|
|
Efficiency
of operation
|
9
|
4
|
36
|
|
Flexibility
to meet future change
|
9
|
4
|
36
|
|
Condition (as
it affects use and desired outcome)
|
8
|
4
|
32
|
|
Total
|
|
|
387
|
Footnote Probability
10 = most important,
absolutely critical factor 10 = cannot occur
0 = unimportant
and not worth considering 0 = absolutely guaranteed occurrence
with no risk
Score Total
Importance x probability show
comparative ranking of risk
Higher scores
– greatest project risk between options
OPTION
4
Retain West and Central
sites in Wantage (11-14 at West and 14-18 at Central) and sell East site.
|
|
Risk
Factor
|
Importance
0
- 10
|
Probability
0
- 10
|
Score
|
|
Cost
|
Funding Shortfall
|
9
|
9
|
81
|
|
|
Cashflow
|
3
|
2
|
6
|
|
|
Project Cost
Overrun
|
3
|
0
|
0
|
|
|
Whole Life
Cost (capital revenue)
|
8
|
|
64
|
|
Timing Delay
|
Brief and Policy
Change
|
5
|
7
|
40
|
|
|
Funding Delay
|
7
|
8
|
56
|
|
|
Delivery delay
|
6
|
9
|
54
|
|
Quality of
Schools
/Desired
Outcome
|
Suitability
of space, buildings and sites
|
8
|
9
|
72
|
|
Sufficiency
|
8
|
8
|
64
|
|
Efficiency
of operation
|
9
|
5
|
45
|
|
Flexibility
to meet future change
|
9
|
9
|
81
|
|
Condition (as
it affects use and desired outcome)
|
8
|
8
|
64
|
|
Total
|
|
|
627
|
Footnote Probability
10 = most important,
absolutely critical factor 10 = cannot occur
0 = unimportant
and not worth considering 0 = absolutely guaranteed occurrence
with no risk
Score Total
Importance x probability show
comparative ranking of risk
Higher scores
– greatest project risk between options
Return to TOP
|